Författaren som vid sidan av sina forskningar om etniska minoriteter och flyktingar har person
lig erfarenhet av flyktingskapets villkor, ger här synpunkter på minoritets- och invandrarforsk
ning.
As the entire world outside of the. Academia attempts to unify, seeing it as the only way to survive in this rapidly changing global community, academia is responding in its own autonomo
us way by increasing its already complex divisions. Sometimes the emergence of new academic subjects reflects the advancement of sciences, e.g. when cancer research led to the establishment of oncology, etc. However, sometimes the reasons may be exactly the opposite. One example, among several, may be the academic approach towards the so-called Minority and Immigration Research. Allow me to share some thoughts with you on the peculiarities of current internatio
nal development in both of the familiar worlds: academic and non-academic.
On the one hand we can observe a trend towards establishing a global village in the forma
tion of macro-regions with an open setlement and employment policy, which allows virtually free transit between co-operating countries, such as in Scandinavia or in the EEC. In addition, due to the overlapping of macro-regions we see that some countries benefit, while others do not, from this new regionalization; for example, while Sweden and Denmark both belong to the Nordic Council, Denmark is a member of the EEC, while Greenland and Sweden are not.
On the other hand, 1/3 of Sweden’s population is going to be of foreign extraction in the year 2000, even though, for outsiders the country was synonymous with ”homogenity” practi
cally yesterday.
79
How did the academics specializing in the studies of culture. The ethnographers, respond to the rapid cultural changes occuring in their macro-region (Norden) and their native country e.g. Swe
den?
They divided the subject of Ethnography into 3 autonomous academic disciplines: Ethnology, Social Anthropology, and Cultural Anthropology. Furthermore the new administrative units we
re incorporated into different faculties and consequently instead of generating new patterns of scientific co-operation, the divided ethnographers began following and fulfilling faculty programs according to die university and faculty they belonged to. For example while at Uppsala Uni
versity the Department of Cultural Anthropology is incorporated into the Faculty of Humani
ties, at the University of Gothenburg Social Anthropology, belongs to the Faculty of Social Sciences, and Ethnology to the Faculty of Humanities.
In likenes with the Danish politicians’ dilemma, how to combine the Nordic Council’s ap
proach with EEC’s while maintaining, political links with an autonomous Greenland, the divi
ded Swedish Ethnographers’ dilemma seems to be how to maintain their former patterns of uni
ty and yet benefit from the new developments in their respective methodological and theoreti
cal approaches towards the global villagers in general, in particular the ”overnight” development of a multi-ethnic community in their own country.
There are several ways of experiencing to exotic. Some of the divided ethnographers, who call themselves anthropologists used to apply a sophisticated register of current theories on eth
nicity, race relations, pluralism, etc., in analyzing their ethnographic data, collected during their field work among immigrants in Sweden. Their colleagues, who often happen to be classified as
”only folklorists”, paid less attention to vivid theoretical debates, but rather concentrate on ge
nerating new methodological strategies from solid ethnographic field work. The former conse
quently lead to new theoretical perspectives on cross-cultural dynamics. Thus, while many soci
al anthropologists were preoccupied with preserving their failing image as the ”intelectual elite among divided ethnographers”, compiling their data into increasingly ’sophisticated theories’, ot
her social and cultural anthropologists together with ethnologists, were trying to transform their past and new ethnographic experiences into fulfilling each other’s desires for more adequate field data, rather, than for more jargonized ”ivory tower”-like discussions. The latter’s reaso
ning is based on the trivial fact that even the most sophisticated computer would always come up with ”scientifically designed lumber”, if it was fed e.g. ethnographic inadequacies.
Studies of Human Potential.
While the first generation of Swedish Social Anthropologists were on the way to emerge as the key advisers for the govermental bodies responsible for balancing immigration policy and socio
economical development, Professor of Economics and Director of the Conservation of Human Resources at Columbia University, Eli Ginzberg, made an attempt to critically review, the rea
sons why Sweden began to show signs of an impending economic crizis. After his extensive in
terviews with different groups of people in Sweden and Swedes outside of Sweden, Ginzberg published a striking report. Not only did he forecast the reasons why the Swedish Social De
mocratic Government would be replaced, but also warned (1970) that, regardless of leadership changes, every new administration in Sweden would be confronted with ”the most tantalizing of Sweden’s unsolved problems: how much scope does a modern society have to correct the imperfections of the market, to improve the social environment, and to facilitate the develop
ment of human potential?
Let us for the sake of comparison focus on both the changes in the development of human potential, as well as on the interdependence of the non-academic and academic worlds. First let’s consider how academics specializing in cross-cultural studies are dealing with the methodo
logical difficulties emerging during their studies of human potential, both in Sweden and outsi
de of Sweden. Professor of Social Anthropology at Stockholm University, Ulf Hannerz in his polished inquiries into ghetto culture and community pointed out that ”The anthropologist has
to deal with the people in whose way of life he is interested in such way that they give him as much access as possible to "real life" (sic! ) situations or their near substitutes while at the same time he attempts to minimize the possibilty that he influences their behavior away from represen tativity ”.2 >
After 6 years of involvement in Gypsy research in Poland and Czechoslovakia, I arrived in Sweden in 1972 to continue my comparative field research on the interrelations between inter
nal and external leadership emerging among the minority groups due to their responses towards changes in social ecology. In the beginning, I found Hannerz’s conclusions, based on his urban studies in Washington D.C., not only instructive, but they also seemed to be universally valid.
However, during the following 8 years (1972-79) I not only experienced a personal transition from a Polish native to a Swedish immigrant with a stateless passport and finally to being a Swedish citizen; in addition, I, too, experienced the methodological dilemma how to get ac
cess to the ”real life” in the Hannerz’s sense, and that of the Swedish Parliament’s guideli- ness of 1975: equality between immigrants and Swedes, cultural freedom of choice for immi
grants, and co-operation and solidarity between the Swedish native majority and the various ethnic minorities.
As time passed these and other experiences made me not only review my role as a conven
tional anthropological researcher, but also recognize that I was dependent upon the group I was working with, namely the Gypsy refuges from Poland who entered Sweden in the early 1970’s. In more concrete words, while I had previously been drawn only to voluntary situa
tions (a majority member who professionally deals with minority groups) where I - in likeness to Hannerz - had the full ability to control the development of my research, subsequent
ly I also became - in contrast to Hannerz - involved in non-voluntary and uncontrollable inter
acting with both the minority and majority in Sweden. In a similar way, Gypsy immigrants are generally at the mercy of their host society and have to change their culture accordingly.
Among the Gypsy-Roma... (Rom means Human in Gypsy Language).
I first became acquainted with urban Gypsies of Southern Poland and my main interest was essentially from a legal point of view, namely an alternative (to the non-Gypsy) system of jus
tice. Later on, when I was involved in investigation of village peasants’ attitudes towards stran
gers I coincidentally found that the local villagers whose income was partly dependent on tou
rist services were preoccupied with strangers other than tourists, namely Gypsies residing on the border of the settlement. One of the complaints often aired by the peasants was that the presence of non-peasants in the village made it difficult for them to attract tourists. This was because the village’s picturesque appearance already seemed to be spoiled by strangers, who did not wear the traditional costumes of the mountain people. Additionally, the villagers resen
ted a recent change in the Gypsies’ pattern of employment. Instead of helping the peasants du
ring the hectic summer months, as had been common in the past, the Gypsies were increasing
ly choosing seasonal forest employment in neighbouring Czechoslovakia.
These conversations with the peasants directed me to the local Gypsies. Their main reason for finding employment in the forest was to be near their relatives living on the other side of the frontier in Czechoslovakia. Talking with my Gypsy interlocutors I mentioned the names of the conversation easier. Their reaction startled me: I was angrily informed that the families in question were ”no longer Roma, but Gypsies co-operating with invaders”.
Let's give a brief explanation why not all Gypsies of Poland feel comfortable with each others by clarifying a few basic divisions found among both the Gypsies residing in Poland and those who emigrated from Poland to Scandinavia:
The largest and most visible Gypsy group in Poland is called Kalderasba which together with another group, Lovara entered the territory of present-day Poland on their way to Scan
dinavia from die Balkan. Here the two groups met the local Gypsies of Poland (who were at that time divided between Prussia, Austria and Russia): Polska Roma and Bergitka Roma. The
6 nord nytt 20 81
Polska Roma were the first of the Gypsy groups to reach the geographic region of contempo
rary Poland. They came in the 14th-15th centuries, and migrated primarily within the bounda
ries of the Polish Kingdom until Poland was divided in 1772. Later (in the 15th-16th centuri
es) the other group of Gypsies settled in the south-eastern part of Poland, and were called Carpathian, or Bergitka Roma.
During my first encounter with Gypsies in 1966 I had been unaware of the sub-divisions among the various Gypsy groups of Poland. I believed that the group I knew of - the Polska Roma -represented all the Gypsies of Poland. In 1968, I damaged my interviews with Bergitka Roma the latter are, in fact, a rival Gypsy group. It took me several weeks to realize that the informant would not become more talkative and forthcoming if she or he was places in a set
ting of the relationship Gypsies - non-Gypsies, since their concern with such relations was on
ly part of wider spectrum relationships. Nevertheless, these awkward attempts to establish con
tacts with the rival Gypsy group were not unprofitable; through these experiences I found that the Bergitka Roma residing in Poland, identifies themselves primarily with the group of Gyp
sies living in Slovakia, rather than with any of the other Polish groups (Polska Roma, Kalde- rasha, Lovara).
Subsequently I spent four and a half months among Czechoslovakian Gypsies between 1969- 71. Due to the political situation in Czechoslovakia (the transition Novotny-Dubcek-Husak and the Soviet invasion) as well as in Poland in 1970 (the transition Gumulka - Gierek), I was un
able to conduct continuous field work during this period. My research was regularly interrup
ted by the Czechoslovakian authorities, since I did my investigation without a formal research permit, furthermore my data collection was focused on localities near the frontier of Czecho
slovakia. I used such interruptions to pursue a comparative study of inter-group relations among Gypsies - the previously mentioned groups Bergitka, Polska Roma, Kalderasha, Lovara. In this work my main focus was on how the identities of these Gypsy groups were articulated diffe
rently under the influence of forces of change appearing in the host society.
Thus, without the officially required permit, this phase of the research in Poland and Cze
choslovakia involved no more than eleven months in the field. In Czechoslovakia, the fieldwork was conducted on a tourist visa. Although in Poland I was constantly being controlled due the close proximity of the border, I was tolerated by the security forces there, when they heard that I could speak the regional dialect of the mountain people. In 1971 when this unofficial part of my fieldwork was completed and had been written up as a chapters of my M.Sc. the
sis at the University of Warsaw, I finally received a research permit and a grant from the Slo
vakian Academy of Sciences along with several benefits such as an assistant who organized my accommodation, route of travel and network of references. This at first seemed like a break
through.
Within one month, I was able to make appointments with a number of Gypsy and non
Gypsy officials, including those who had previously refused to grant me an interview. However, these favours of arranged interviews also had a boomerang effect: visiting some of the places where I had resided previously without a permit, and talking to the same Gypsy individuals, I was given a somewhat different version of the events that had seen told to me only a year earlier.
Thus, as my unofficial contact with the Slovakian Gypsies had led to my acceptance by the Bergitka Roma in Poland, my present official status as a researcher on Gypsies, arranged by the non-Gypsy administration, made my informants suspicious even though they seemed more talkative and willing to co-operate!
In both cases I was doing overt participant observation - but with different results. I was aware of these differences, but did not fully understand them until later, when I found my
self in a situation that was qualitatively similar to that of the Gypsies, in which the previous hypotheses, as well as earlier applied techniques to test them in new* complex field settings became slowly irrelevant. Consequently I gradually went through a process which bould be
comparable to avoiding wearing other persons’ uniforms as a means to be accepted by them, but rather letting myself enter for a while the world of feelings in a foreign context. In more con
crete words, I didn’t want any more to fit myself into the foreign shoes, but generate a more relevant hypothesis and theoretical perspective after I learned the reality projected by a sub
jective state of mind.
In my naivete, however, I assumed that a walk-into-feelings strategy could be practiced with the same measured professional risk as a walk-in-exotic community method. But it could not.
And as it will be show below, to walk within new dimensions is only possible by inventing transformations in personal thinking.
In the Country of the Divided Ethnographers.
After two thirds of my Ph.D. fieldwork (Poland and Czechoslovakia) were completed, and on
ly the Scandinavian part remained, I was allowed by the Polish Ministry of Education to exchan
ge my two months salary for 110 dollars as a financial basis for my field research in Sweden.
Nevertheless, my fieldwork did not really begin as I had expected and it took me one and half years before I was able to settle my own situation and be able to approach the object of my research: Gypsies. First, I found myself in a circle out of which I was unable to break, as both the Polish and the Swedish Authorities attitudes towards me were contradictory. Second, possessing only $ 110 and not having a resident permit nor a work permit, I had to eat, live and survive somehow.
During my frequent visits to the Swedish Police who were questioning me on my attach
ment to the Department of Social Anthropology and the topic of my research I recognized that the police officers in charge of the interviews were suspicious when I informed them that the research topic was Gypsies. During our first policevisit, a Swedish friend who accompanied me used an accidental break to tell me that I should not mention the Gypsies, but rather des
cribe my research as concerned with minorities. Thus, I stated that the Gypsies were only a very marginal part of my field work. Some time later, after I conducted my first of three re
search trips to Greenland in 1974, I said that I was doing research on Scandinavian Minorities (Greenlanders and partially Gypsies), when what I actually did was to start more extensive fieldwork among so-called Swedish Gypsies and Gypsy immigrants from Poland.
By reading Swedish daily papers, comparative reports on immigrants, and attending language courses for foreigners, I had already learned by myself that some foreigners were treated bet
ter than others. My own experiences were not exactly painful, except that it was obvious to me that I was better treated than some country’s immigrants or worse than other groups of immigrants. I found that it would be safer for me in all official or administrative contexts to expose my professional attachment to the from the Swedish perspective more ”neutral”, Scan
dinavian minority Greenlanders, than to show my interest in Gypsies. My instrumental use of this so-called ”neutrality game” was actually not my own invention, but was and is practiced by the Swedish social anthropologists in their fieldwork among the ghetto or reservation dwel
lers outside of Sweden. Ulf Hannerz, for example, was over-stressing his non-American backgro
und by applying his knowledge of boxing, namely by talking with his ghetto acquaintances abo
ut the heavy weight championship fights of his fellow Swede, Ingemar Johansson. Subsequent
ly, he was able to neutralize his outsider status already during the introductory phase of his field research among the U.S. blacks: ”my emergent identity soon seemed to be Swedish first,
some-kind-of-fellow-who-wants-to-know-about-the-neighborhood-and-maybe-write-a-book-about-it second”.Hannerz continued ”Relatively few knew exactly what an anthropologist is or does, of course, and ’finding out how people live here’ seemed a quite satisfactory definition of my purpose”.5^
My planned research on Gypsies was progressing yet, I was gradually shifting from my pre
vious research plan. Being more and more exposed to unexpected and sometimes even illegal activities in my fieldwork among the Gypsies, I became a great deal more uncertain: should I
6* 83
report the reality of my informants, which is often in contradiction to the reality presented by official sources?
Culture Shock.
Trying to find an answer I once again directed my professional interest to Hannerz’s sympathe
tic inquiries into ghetto culture and community, especially to the field-appendix of his ”Soul
side”, in which he not only shares the ”odd experience of being ’not wanted’ ”, but also gi
ves instruction as how to be ”an accepted outsider”:
”1 dressed informally in order not to be like those whites who are in the ghetto ’on busi
ness’... I also tried to change my speech in the direction of the ghetto dialect... My radio
ness’... I also tried to change my speech in the direction of the ghetto dialect... My radio